Actionable Explainable AI (AxAI): A Practical Example with Aggregation Functions for Adaptive Classification and Textual Explanations for Interpretable Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many domains of our daily life (e.g., agriculture, forestry, health, etc.), both laymen and experts need to classify entities into two binary classes (yes/no, good/bad, sufficient/insufficient, benign/malign, etc.). For many entities, this decision is difficult and we need another class called “maybe”, which contains a corresponding quantifiable tendency toward one of these two opposites. Human domain experts are often able to mark any entity, place it in a different class and adjust the position of the slope in the class. Moreover, they can often explain the classification space linguistically—depending on their individual domain experience and previous knowledge. We consider this human-in-the-loop extremely important and call our approach actionable explainable AI. Consequently, the parameters of the functions are adapted to these requirements and the solution is explained to the domain experts accordingly. Specifically, this paper contains three novelties going beyond the state-of-the-art: (1) A novel method for detecting the appropriate parameter range for the averaging function to treat the slope in the “maybe” class, along with a proposal for a better generalisation than the existing solution. (2) the insight that for a given problem, the family of t-norms and t-conorms covering the whole range of nilpotency is suitable because we need a clear “no” or “yes” not only for the borderline cases. Consequently, we adopted the Schweizer–Sklar family of t-norms or t-conorms in ordinal sums. (3) A new fuzzy quasi-dissimilarity function for classification into three classes: Main difference, irrelevant difference and partial difference. We conducted all of our experiments with real-world datasets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".